Toxic fumes on planes blamed for pilot deaths, suicides and brain damage: report

Posted by MangoesFruity@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 219 comments

Anyone have any personal experience or thoughts on the mechanic or pilot side? Should we be more concerned?

Reply to Post

Reply

219 Comments

[-]

metalgtr84@reddit

“In another severe incident cited by the Journal, seven US Airways crew members were exposed to toxic fumes aboard a Boeing 767 in January 2010. Within 18 months, six were diagnosed by separate doctors with chemically induced brain injuries. Two later died of cancer and the captain ultimately took his own life, according to the Journal.” I wasn’t expecting that. How does that level of toxic fumes make its way to the cabin?

Reply

[-]

RestaurantFamous2399@reddit

Oil seals 8lin the engine fail, and the heated oil fumes get into the bleed air system that feeds the environmental control system.

Reply

[-]

Ferrarisimo@reddit

And how come it only affects the pilots and not the rest of the crew and passengers?

Reply

[-]

pyromanicure@reddit

In the January 2010 incident in particular, the pilots and crew were [exposed for twice as long](https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article311942370.html) to the fumes since they started during the end of a prior flight and continued on their next flight on the same plane an hour later.

Reply

[-]

ctcx@reddit

It does affect passengers. A law professor just sued Boeing over this [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/law-professor-sues-boeing-over-toxic-fume-exposure/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/law-professor-sues-boeing-over-toxic-fume-exposure/)

Reply

[-]

RestaurantFamous2399@reddit

It does affect the passengers. But they aren't under workplace safety laws. The crews health was monitored after the incident. Passengers have to prove their injuries and sue for compensation.

Reply

[-]

PIE-314@reddit

Passangers also aren't exposed to the environment as long as the pilots/crew. The dose makes the poison.

Reply

[-]

Paranoma@reddit

Eh. If it’s flowing to the cabin then the passengers are exposed the same amount; unless it happens on multiple flights, which for even the people making up the crew would be rare to fly together again, let alone another flight that had a super rare occurrence such as this. I think the reason is because the passengers just don’t know to tell their doctors, complain to the airline, or even know to be watchful of symptoms, and certainly they certainly aren’t contacted or followed through by the airline, .

Reply

[-]

Linetrash406@reddit

It’s exposure time. Average commercial pilot flight time is 600-900 hours a year. 85% of air travel is short haul flights. I can’t find any data on us averages. But for the UK, the average is 6 hours a year. Look at it like pop. Drinking 6 gallons of soda a year isn’t going to do anything. 600 gallons of soda a year is gonna cause serious problems. You can’t say “well, they both drink pop, should affect them the same”

Reply

[-]

Paranoma@reddit

You clearly have not read my comment in full.

Reply

[-]

Linetrash406@reddit

I sure did.

Reply

[-]

SoothedSnakePlant@reddit

You aren't exposed to toxic fumes every hour of every flight, and that's not what this article is even about. It's specifically talking about fume events. Please actually understand the conversation before participating in it.

Reply

[-]

Raccoon_Ratatouille@reddit

The issue isn’t residual fumes that are constantly in the background on every flight, it’s from specific incidents where seals fail and let oil fumes into the a/c system.

Reply

[-]

th3orist@reddit

User was talking just about that one flight where there was something actually faulty. Not over time or several flights

Reply

[-]

TackleMySpackle@reddit

On most Boeing airplanes one of the packs feeds the cockpit and the other the passenger compartment. It’s not that one pack is less likely to fail than the other, it’s that passengers on a flight that had cockpit odor Might never know it because they’re getting air from a different source.

Reply

[-]

Paranoma@reddit

Possible but unlikely in all these cases that that is what happened. Always having engine 1 or PACK 1 be the issue would add a layer to this mystery.

Reply

[-]

TackleMySpackle@reddit

Bayesian reasoning… The flight crews who report smoke in the cockpit will switch to the pack that isn’t smoking (which is the one that feeds the passenger compartment). The passengers may not even notice. BUT both cockpit and passengers will be made aware if there is smoke in the passenger compartment. Assuming there is equal chance for failure in this manner, and considering that the probability of the failure is low to start, then the flight crews will be the ones breathing in smoke for >50% of the failures (getting to that later) - which will generally be limited to less than 5 people and will not make the news. A pack that does this to a passenger compartment will probably make the news (and does if you Google it) on a semi-regular basis (few times a year). Because the folks in the cockpit will sometimes fly airplanes that have repeat problems (for example, maintenance could find nothing wrong and the plane took off again and the problem repeated) they still will experience more than 50% of these issues directly. It’s even possible the crew could experience it on two consecutive flight legs but the passengers are all different than on the first flight leg. Furthermore, operators of cargo flights that have no passengers will be the only ones to report it, further skewing the numbers. It’s not that a certain pack fails more often, it’s that when they do, the flight crews experience it more often than passengers even if the failure probability is 50/50.

Reply

[-]

Paranoma@reddit

Nice explanation but that’s not how this works. If there is a problem with a PACK, especially this problem presents itself as smoke/fumes, we will not use it again. In fact it is a dire emergency warranting an emergency landing. Also although PACK 1 supplies air to the cockpit and 2 to the cabin it doesn’t exclusively supply air to those compartments nor is each an isolated air tight chamber. Three, if this issue occurred it is, again, a full blown emergency. The flight crew is not flying it a second leg after the first, if the aircraft flies again after being cleared it is extremely unlikely to be flown by the first crew just as a matter of scheduling, let alone ignoring the emergency they just dealt with.

Reply

[-]

TackleMySpackle@reddit

I wasn’t suggesting that it would be used again on the same flight. If I implied that, then my mistake, but it’s not what I meant. What I was saying is that if there is a problem in the cockpit, you switch to the other pack to condition the air in the cockpit. The passengers may/may not experience any of the smoke - just that the plane has to land under emergency conditions. So, of the people aboard who is most likely going to complain about smoke in the cockpit? The flight crew. And if the pack that conditions the air for the passengers fails, the flight crew is also involved as part of their job. Whether they experience smoke or not is probably random chance but they will still report it, naturally. So in 100% of the cases the flight crew will report smoke but in less than 100% of the cases, the passengers will. They will only report it if they experience it and, let’s face it, only if they can make a TikTok video of it. Plus, just by the fact that flight crew fly more than almost anyone in the general public the odds are more likely that they’ll experience this on multiple occasions, making them more likely to associate it, correctly or not, with other conditions. I certainly think it’s something crews should be concerned about and it certainly wouldn’t surprise me if the smoke did cause health issues. I don’t want to diminish that. I’m merely stating that the odds of pack failure in this manner are likely 50/50 but the way it’s reported and experienced would make it seem less so.

Reply

[-]

Paranoma@reddit

You’re just misunderstanding how these systems work at a basic level which is leading you to believe they are completely isolated in their output to the different areas of the aircraft. They’re not.

Reply

[-]

LeftyLife89@reddit

Passengers are on the planes for one flight. Pilots are on them repeatedly. There is a drastically different level of repeated exposure to pilots.

Reply

[-]

SoothedSnakePlant@reddit

Fume events do not last multiple flights.

Reply

[-]

triggerfish1@reddit

You could theorize that a baseline concentration of toxic materials/previous injuries could build up in their bodies, and that one extreme event somehow pushed that concentration into a hazardous range. But who knows whether this kind off accumulation happens.

Reply

[-]

intern_steve@reddit

Aircraft-dependent: the cockpit is getting far more air changes than the rest of the ship. It's a tiny enclosed space and it has far more airflow because of the much higher cooling demands due to the greenhouse and the avionics. If the bleed that feeds the cockpit is the one spitting engine oil into the packs, then the flight crew is getting absolutely blasted with toxic fumes.

Reply

[-]

ScroungingMonkey@reddit

Passengers take one flight a year, crew take multiple flights per year. Exposure would absolutely be higher for the crew.

Reply

[-]

Paranoma@reddit

You have absolutely proven you didn’t read my full comment. Good luck to you internet person.

Reply

[-]

dhall47@reddit

As someone whose profession requires testing for airborne compounds in indoor environments (albeit NOT aircraft), I have read your comment in full. I thoroughly disagree simply based on the fact that the cockpit is a completely different “indoor” space than the remainder of the aircraft. It’s a much smaller “room” which would allow for much higher concentrations of compounds to accumulate without proper ventilation. It has a nice sturdy door that definitely limits air flow between the two areas, the Think of it like a drop of blue dye in a teaspoon vs a gallon of milk, atleast that’s the idea. If you’ve ever seen results from indoor VOC testing then you would know that even in a house with all the doors open to every room, there would certainly be a variance in results for each room tested. That doesn’t mean different compounds, but certainly different concentrations of the same compounds for each area. Going by your logic, if someone poops at the very front of the plane, then someone at the very back of the plane would smell it when that’s just not true…

Reply

[-]

AlexaTheRaichu@reddit

In regards to a smoke and fumes event, where something in the engine failed to cause a lot of oil to enter the bleed system, it could also be funneled directly into the cockpit rather than the passenger cabin depending on which air conditioning pack the event affected. One primarily feeds the cockpit, the other feeds the cabin. It has happened before and will again

Reply

[-]

ArcticBiologist@reddit

Exposure time. It's why the nurse hides when taking your x-rays

Reply

[-]

morganational@reddit

It's because the nurse doesn't understand x-rays and shouldn't be there in the first place. If a nurse is performing your x-rays, go to a different facility.

Reply

[-]

Djinnmenken@reddit

Nurses take them, doctors analyse them.

Reply

[-]

paramedTX@reddit

Radiology techs take them. It is a totally separate specialized training program.

Reply

[-]

morganational@reddit

😑 I hate reddit so much

Reply

[-]

Wismuth_Salix@reddit

>i hate Reddit so much - 12-year-old account Buddy, you fucking are Reddit.

Reply

[-]

morganational@reddit

Not anymore.

Reply

[-]

DocRowe@reddit

Not at a dentist. It's typically the dentist or hygienist taking them. Extremely common occurrence.

Reply

[-]

morganational@reddit

Not in the US they don't.

Reply

[-]

Scifi_fans@reddit

What a werid dude

Reply

[-]

morganational@reddit

I don't make the laws, lol. Nurses don't take x-rays, is my point.

Reply

[-]

OkFan7121@reddit

Passengers are protected by the law in the UK, the Health & Safety at Work Act requires that workplaces be a safe environment for all persons present.

Reply

[-]

Sea_Beginning_5009@reddit

Maybe it did and just wasn't traced back

Reply

[-]

Swagger897@reddit

No one answered your question correctly but on most modern airbus and boeing (excluding 787) aircraft, if the oil seals fail in the left engine, and if the pneumatic system is properly configured for normal flight, the left pack is the primary source of cabin air for the flight deck. Then it either flows into the outflow valve or is recirculating in the cabin, to which it first goes through hepa filters. That’s a pretty isolated event typically. You can mitigate the problem by isolating the left engine’s bleed air, and then turning off the pack. Once you sense the smell, the pack is contaminated and doesn’t come back on.

Reply

[-]

Stoney3K@reddit

Which became even more obvious with the smoke incidents caused by recent 320neo and 737MAX flights which have geared turbofans with load reduction devices. Another argument to split engine pneumatics from the AC system and use fresh outside air to pressurize the aircraft, not rely on 'dirty' air tapped off an engine compressor stage.

Reply

[-]

CaponeKevrone@reddit

LRD is on the LEAP engines which are not geared turbofans

Reply

[-]

rkba260@reddit

You are correct, however the LEAPs if ingesting a bird, will go into a failsafe like mode and dump oil into the pack. It *will* flood the flightdeck/cabin with toxic fumes. Our memory items and QRH dont say a damn thing about masks or shutting off a pack... but thats exactly what I'm doing if we take a bird and the motor fails.

Reply

[-]

TheAlmightySnark@reddit

they don't go into failsafe mode, the LRD is just breakaway bolts due to vibration. it's a mechanical effect, and GE engines have had it before. Mentours understanding felt so deeply flawed and sensationalized.

Reply

[-]

chaosattractor@reddit

that's exactly what he said though so how was it deeply flawed or sensationalised

Reply

[-]

TheAlmightySnark@reddit

Nah he kept sensationalizing as if it was some massive design flaw that would insta-kill everyone in the cabin. He is absolutely out of his depths when it comes to anything technical but hey, this is what you get with these youtubers.

Reply

[-]

chaosattractor@reddit

So did you actually watch the videos in question because he in fact did the direct opposite of that

Reply

[-]

TheAlmightySnark@reddit

Yes I did, and he kept sensationalizing it, I find him quite unbearable ever since.

Reply

[-]

chaosattractor@reddit

I'm sorry but it's rather silly to claim you did and then keep making claims about the videos that are demonstrably false. First you tried to make out as if he didn't know or explain what a load reduction device actually is (when he did, in very clear terms too) and then you tried to make out as if the danger he was warning about was to the *cabin* when 1) he was VERY clear about his concern being the *cockpit* since it is much smaller and easier to fill with fumes, 2) he never claimed that it would "insta-kill" anyone, rather that (and he *literally spells out the scenario he's imagining*) if toxic fumes start to fill the cockpit at a time when pilot workload is high such as right after takeoff, delays in putting on the mask while focusing on flying can lead to pilot incapacitation, and 3) he highlighted secondary dangers *which have already occurred* such as the sheer density of fumes in a very short time making it difficult for the pilots to see their instruments. You don't have to like the man but you are being plain disingenuous, full stop.

Reply

[-]

rkba260@reddit

Honestly, I got my "info" from one of our tech ops while he was fixing something else upfront... I was heads down in the CDU getting things ready so heard bits and pieces. Then had the regurgitated version at cruise from the other pilot, so I'm sure there was a loss of details in the transmission.

Reply

[-]

TheAlmightySnark@reddit

Yeah it's just a bunch of bolts that shear to reduce the vibrational load on the pylon and stop it shearing off. It is only a thing when the engine decides to really fuck up the aircraft, think a shaft trying to jam itself into place at high speed.

Reply

[-]

rkba260@reddit

I see. They gist of what I got was ... motor go boom and oil gets dumped into the pack. Best to mask up, kill the offending pack, then do memory items. Then on the ground, go to the ER with the ALPA guide for "Fume Inhalation Precautions" in hand.

Reply

[-]

TheAlmightySnark@reddit

Yeah that is how it was presented as if it is the clear intention and is the best way to handle the situations. It is literally a way to save the airframe from having a pylon/engine ripped off and causing a lot more damage.

Reply

[-]

CarrotWaxer69@reddit

So is this lubricant oil we’re talking about then? What type of oil do these engines use? I used to work with gas turbines and we used TurbWay (can’t remember the specific type). What’s in the oil that makes it so toxic?

Reply

[-]

Choice-Emergency-457@reddit

Anti wear additive in turbine oil called TriCresyl Phosphate, TCP. It is a neurotoxin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerotoxic_syndrome

Reply

[-]

Swagger897@reddit

Three most common oils used are a mix of Mobile Jet II, Eastman 2197 and 2380.

Reply

[-]

Scifi_fans@reddit

Mate, ANY oil that is aerosolised will affect your lungs and if it goes into your bloodstream by respiration then other parts of your body. The respiratory system evolved to deal with dust/soil/sand but oil in air is 100% a human made problem (and plastics too) so where in for a world of health problems in next decades

Reply

[-]

Little-Carpenter4443@reddit

I’m glad I kept reading until I saw your comment

Reply

[-]

Tigerslovecows@reddit

Hmm just want to make sure I understood their message. does this mean that most modern aircraft are now more likely to mitigate toxic fumes bleed events?

Reply

[-]

Swagger897@reddit

Of all modern aircraft,only the 787 is immune to smoke and fumes events in the cabin. The rest of them all still use engine bleed air that is used to control cabin temp/pressurization. Airbus/boeing, both can suffer from this, as well as all of the three major engine manufacturers. In terms of mitigation, they all have control over which engine is supplying bleed air to whichever pack. You can 100% have one engine supplying both packs, or one engine supplying the offside pack system alone (say right pack is on MEL/inop and left engine has bleed components on MEL/inop). However, once fumes are detected, pilots and the cabin crew will communicate with each other to determine where the source is from. Is it primarily the cockpit, or the aft part of the cabin, or a mix of both. Their hadbooks will tell them what to do in either situation. Once you get oil and vapors into those systems however you don’t start them up again until after maintenance confirms what components are at fault, and you burn out the duct works by blowing the hottest possible air through the ductwork from the engines. There are tools that can be used to “sniff” particle amounts in the air in terms of parts per billion that can be walked up and down the cabin with your hands that can record data. There are currently no approved acceptable ranges for this type of data from boeing/airbus and it’s purely supplemental and carried out by the air line’s themselves, but I’ve seen contaminated cabins in the 25-80,000ppb range drop down to <100ppb once cleaned.

Reply

[-]

lofibeatstostudyslas@reddit

The cabin is a much smaller volume. It could possibly be building up to much higher concentrations. Couple that with flying the same aircraft back and forth every day versus a couple flights a year. Makes sense tbh

Reply

[-]

uV_Kilo11@reddit

A higher concentration of the stuff gets into the cockpit vs the rest of the plane based on which engine does this, as one prioritizes the cockpit and one prioritizes the cabin. Mentour Pilot on YouTube has done a couple of videos on this topic already and has tried to raise alarm bells on this at least like a year ago I think.

Reply

[-]

spazturtle@reddit

Cabin and cockpit are fed by separate engines, if the one feeding the cockpit fails them all of the fumes are dumped into the small cockpit. If the one feeding the cabin fails then the fumes are more diluted as it is a much bigger space.

Reply

[-]

Darkomax@reddit

More room so the fumes are more diluted in the cabin.

Reply

[-]

lollipoppizza@reddit

The cabin is a much larger volume than the cockpit. If there are fumes in the cabin they'll be more "dilute". Plus the cockpit is on a separate air feed system than the cabin. So you can get fumes only in the cockpit.

Reply

[-]

Competitive_Sea3800@reddit

Cockpit is pressurized from one engine and the cabin is pressurized from the other. If a bird strike causes LRD to activate, massive amounts of combusting oil will enter the bleed air system. The result for the cabin is perhaps less severe only because it the fume event is more spread out over more people not flying the plane. If the bird strike is on the other engine, the cockpit is concentrated with toxic gas.

Reply

[-]

Thequiet01@reddit

Different air feeds for cockpit and cabin.

Reply

[-]

Majakowski@reddit

FAs probably flying on different planes with some not having these problems and passengers not flying often enough to get the exposure necessary to develop symptoms? Also we don't know whether FAs were indeed unaffected, we just know it from the pilots because it was investigated and published, could also be that FAs suffered the same but it just wasn't brought to attention.

Reply

[-]

14u2c@reddit

The lack of a heat exchanger sounds like a pretty insane design choice.

Reply

[-]

RestaurantFamous2399@reddit

A heat exchanger where?

Reply

[-]

PengPenguin888@reddit

Not just the engines. Happens a lot with apu too. Especially Airbus planes.

Reply

[-]

Mode_Historical@reddit

I can recall when I worked at AA, in the 1990s, getting on a plane tgat had recently come out of Tulsa maintenance and there was an extremely strong smell of petroleum, in the cabin after startup. One engine smoked profusely for a couple of minutes.

Reply

[-]

Dramatic_Mulberry274@reddit

I’ve once quietly told an UA flight attendant they needed to ground this jet because I could smell the oil seals leaking pretty bad during flight. She gave me a dirty look.

Reply

[-]

cat_prophecy@reddit

I doubt it would be from oil in the bleed air. A $200 Vevor compressor has an oil separator. There is no chance that a jet engine doesn't have an oil separator and dessicant.

Reply

[-]

RestaurantFamous2399@reddit

They dont! Bleed air is several hundred degrees when it leaves the engine. It's not supposed to have any oil in it at all.

Reply

[-]

aeroxan@reddit

Would planes like 787 that don't use bleed air for pressurization be immune from this issue? (I think that's correct, they aren't using bleed air for pressurization. Unless the compressors they use could also do the same thing).

Reply

[-]

RestaurantFamous2399@reddit

Not familiar with the 787 system, so I can't tell you. But any compressor that uses oil for a bearing can fail and put oil into the air stream. Even a failed air bearing can release a horrific toxic smell. I worked on C130J, and the cooling turbines air bearing would fail and make a horrific smoke and fumes. The older C130H had an oil bearing on the cooling turbine, and I never saw one of them fail.

Reply

[-]

aeroxan@reddit

Yeah this is based on reading that the 787 uses a bleedless system. I believe it uses electric compressors. Those will still have oil in the system but hopefully it's not as nasty of an oil or less likely to combust in the way that makes these toxic byproducts. Luckily this seems somewhat rare but really shouldn't ever happen with how bad the consequences are.

Reply

[-]

Difficult-Implement9@reddit

https://youtu.be/wSCM6CeCm1A?si=eC7uwvEUp_zefbwL Aerotoxic Syndrome has been a topic of discussion for some time now. This video is really interesting, but there's another one, I just couldn't find it.

Reply

[-]

Sea_Beginning_5009@reddit

Don't be mentour don't be mentour.. ahh thank spaghetti

Reply

[-]

Difficult-Implement9@reddit

😂😂😂😂!

Reply

[-]

hitchhiketoantarctic@reddit

“Heated engine oils” is repeated often in the article. If an oil seal in the compressor section fails, then the bleed air gets those aerosolized oils, which then come through the ACM into the cabin. I was a union rep around the time of the Spirit event. We spent a lot of time trying to buy test equipment, but in the end the best we could do was advise any flight crew who experienced a fume event (especially smelling wet socks) to go to a hospital and get a neurotoxin screening immediately.

Reply

[-]

Sea_Beginning_5009@reddit

Wet socks?

Reply

[-]

hitchhiketoantarctic@reddit

That’s what a lot of people reported smelling that had these fume events. So if you ever smell what you think is “wet socks” in a fume event…. Get to a hospital. ASAP.

Reply

[-]

ComposerLow6513@reddit

Absolutely is happening and a huge cause of those issues I believe them 100%

Reply

[-]

whepsayrgn@reddit

Damn that’s scary. What do you base that off of?

Reply

[-]

ComposerLow6513@reddit

Multiple stories being reported on it. Jet fuel has lots of VOCs and toxins so if you are acutely exposed to a lot of those fumes of course you will get sick. Airbus has more of these issues then Boeing mostly with JetBlue as of recent in the stories I have seen

Reply

[-]

whepsayrgn@reddit

Thank you, that’s helpful.

Reply

[-]

Winbot4t2@reddit

If you're a line pilot you hear stories like these all the time.

Reply

[-]

whepsayrgn@reddit

Gotcha, thank you. Fresh hell today for me - I had no idea. This is not great.

Reply

[-]

ctcx@reddit

Is it overkill to travel with a mask (not wear it) but have it nearby just in case? I asked ChatGPT and it said "for protection during a **plane fume event** (exposure to irritant chemical vapors and volatile organic compounds), the best commercially available respirator you can buy — assuming money is *not* an issue — is a **NIOSH-approved air-purifying respirator system designed for organic vapors and particulates**, not a cheap DIY mask. The current top-tier choice for that scenario is: ➡️ **3M™ Full Facepiece Reusable Respirator 6900 Series or Elite Series** paired with ➡️ **3M™ 60926 OV/AG/P100 Multi-Gas/Vapor & Particulate Cartridges** This combination gives you: • A **full face seal** (not just covering mouth/nose) for the best protection and reduced leakage • **Organic Vapor (OV) protection** for chemical fumes like those in a fume event • **Acid Gas (AG) protection** for potential acidic irritants • **P100 particulate filtration** for ultrafine aerosols in the cabin air • Higher-quality, professionally-tested cartridges that are **NIOSH certified** For ultimate reliability you can also consider the **3M™ Full Facepiece 7800 Series** with the same OV/AG/P100 cartridges or **Honeywell North 7600 Series** full face respirator with **OV/P100 cartridges**. These are used in industry for solvent fumes and hazardous vapors and will outperform the cheaper half-mask or DIY options for airplane fume exposure." Would it be crazy to bring this along "just in case"?

Reply

[-]

Mode_Historical@reddit

What's more concerning is the rate of cancer that flight crews develop over the years. I can think of about 10 pilots i knew out of 50 who developed cancers. Melanoma being tge most frequent.

Reply

[-]

Codemoniux@reddit

Don't forget the cancer incidence is around 30 %. So statistically 15 out of 50 people will develop cancer in their lifetime. Not defending Boeing and other manufacturers, especially Boeing, these are criminals and I wish the management and investors suffer as much as the victims of their greedy culture.

Reply

[-]

WearingCoats@reddit

At altitude they’re getting so much more UV exposure than people do on the ground. Melanoma is super common in pilots for this reason.

Reply

[-]

undockeddock@reddit

Its likely the fume issue along with additional radiation exposure from flying at altitude

Reply

[-]

1977_AMC_Pacer_wagon@reddit

14+ years active duty air force - f-16 and a-10 maintenance. Basically daily exposure to oil, jp8 (we used to clean our jets with it and no PPE...), hydrazine exposure, etc. I have had a ton of auditory issues, mostly not being able to 'clearly' hear one person in a conversation. It makes it impossible to be in loud environments and I can't even think straight (it feels like every frequency is betting blasted into my brain at once and I couldn't pick apart one noise from another. It was very hard to explain and it felt like I was going crazy. A couple years back I found a VA study that seems to completely describe my issue. Hoping one day they'll find a cure, but I doubt it'll be in my lifetime. [https://www.research.va.gov/currents/spring2014/spring2014-11.cfm](https://www.research.va.gov/currents/spring2014/spring2014-11.cfm)

Reply

[-]

ThrowAwayColor2023@reddit

I’m autistic and have auditory processing disorder. This sounds very similar. It’s unconscionable that we don’t take sufficient precautions to protect people from acquiring this disorder.

Reply

[-]

not_great_out_here@reddit

Yeah that’s what I thought when I read this. But I also spent years hot fueling helicopters, so who knows.

Reply

[-]

Frequent-Print-918@reddit

Wow. I tried explaining this at my tinnitus evaluation, lady said I’ve heard that a lot but we only test for loss of hearing. Thank you for linking the article.

Reply

[-]

Several-Instance-444@reddit

I was a mechanic---I crawled in fuel tanks. Mechanics and ground crew have to smell this burning turbine oil continually. It's really rancid, and the engines smoke a lot. Airplanes really freak me out for all the chemical exposure.

Reply

[-]

No_Ice_577@reddit

I’m planning to become an aircraft mechanic. Being small, I anticipate I’ll have to crawl in fuel tanks too. What can be done to mitigate or ideally eliminate risks of toxic chemical exposure? Do they have you wear protective equipment?

Reply

[-]

Several-Instance-444@reddit

The sort of places I worked had a very loose relationship with safety and good practices. I've never even seen a reference to OSHA at any place I've worked. Essentially, we were responsible for our own safety including buying the correct respirators and filters. I wish I could give a better answer, but the truth is you're on your own.

Reply

[-]

No_Ice_577@reddit

What kind of places? I’m aiming to go to the airlines, or corporate jets.also may I ask what you transitioned into if you’re no longer in maintenance?

Reply

[-]

meesersloth@reddit

I was a crew chief on F-15s and I helped launch some F-16s on occasion, when the 16 would start its JFS would let out a puff of black smoke and you stood in that puff on occasion and I just thought that took a few years off my life. Don’t get me started on the potential hydrazine exposure every time you pulled the EPU pin.

Reply

[-]

MelsEpicWheelTime@reddit

One day we're going to look back at flightline crew lack of PPE, the same way we look at agent orange technicians today. Man, I thought all hydrazine related maintenance required a positive pressure suit.

Reply

[-]

NavXIII@reddit

Is the same oil exhausted out the back of the engine during use? When I worked on the ramp and a plane came in, the engines shutdown but there's still some dark smoke coming out the back of the engine.

Reply

[-]

Loose-cannon1954@reddit

Yes, its oil cooking off. That little pipe in the centre of the exhaust cone is the vent for the rear turbine support bearing seal. That smoke is dangerous and should be avoided. If you get a strong light and look into that you will see 1/2 cup of oil pooled there. Oil that escaped the labyrinth seal on shutdown. I think we use Exxon 2381 turbine oil on my fleet. The MSDS is sobering reading.

Reply

[-]

TheAlmightySnark@reddit

could be the center vent tube or other gasses from the combustor.

Reply

[-]

Express-Way9295@reddit

Be sure not to grind on any metal without a respirator.

Reply

[-]

JayHag@reddit

It’s interesting because when these fume events happen they make maintenance go onboard and inhale the fumes on purpose lol.

Reply

[-]

Basis_Mountain@reddit

not just fumes, the radiation at that altitude is dangerous

Reply

[-]

Andreuw5@reddit

I agree with u. Pilots are the most exposed to radiation personnel. Even more than personnel in nuclear power plants. I dont know why u were downvoted.

Reply

[-]

bobnuthead@reddit

I think because this article and discussion are meant to bring attention to the acute and very troubling dangers of fume events. While the risks of radiation are also a concern, they have been studied much more, are better understood, and because they tend to be cumulative rather than acute, it’s not quite as alarming a problem as fume events which can be permanently damaging or lethal. It’s really a different magnitude.

Reply

[-]

Acceptable_Movie6712@reddit

I didn’t know this and the downvotes made it seem like it was false information. Odd to downvote factual stuff (not saying you did or didn’t).

Reply

[-]

bobnuthead@reddit

Yeah I didn’t, but I figured others did as a matter of relevance. I think it’s good people are aware of the many carcinogenic and toxic risks flight crew are exposed to, but I could go on about fuels and ground equipment and particulate exposure, but it all pales in comparison to acute fume event risks (from what recent news shows)

Reply

[-]

Andreuw5@reddit

Merry Christmas, btw!

Reply

[-]

haglol@reddit

If I wear a n95 mask does this reduce the risk?

Reply

[-]

dndndndnnddddhhh@reddit

Think you need a p95 or better

Reply

[-]

bch2021_@reddit

Nope. These are VOCs. You'd need a real respirator with cartridges

Reply

[-]

Tony_Three_Pies@reddit

Fume events are so insidious it’s really one of the few things I worry about. It’s why I’m not sure how it feel about how the FAA, CFM and Boeing are dealing with LEAP issue. As has become the pattern in the US, the NTSB identified a serious problem and the people actually capable of doing something just issued some “guidance” and a bulletin. They claim to be working on a fix but haven’t heard anything about progress. On the other hand, maybe there’s nothing to be done except wait - unless we eat to ground anything with a LEAP. It does seem like that article is conflating a couple things. Towards the end of the article it quotes Boeing as defending the air quality on board, and the quotes all seem to be talking about the *general* air quality during a normal flight, not the air quality during a failure that causes a fume event.

Reply

[-]

ABoutDeSouffle@reddit

> and the quotes all seem to be talking about the general air quality during a normal flight, not the air quality during a failure that causes a fume event. Pretty typical corporate communications policy - talk about something that is similar but not at all the topic at hand to defuse it.

Reply

[-]

Tony_Three_Pies@reddit

Sure. You have to take anything a corporation says with an enormous grain of salt but The NY Post doesn’t do journalism. They didn’t ask Boeing for comment and get those answers, they just cobbled together quotes from different sources.

Reply

[-]

Swagger897@reddit

It’s more than just boeing and cfm. Any aircraft using bleed air for pressurization can suffer from these events.

Reply

[-]

Darkomax@reddit

The LEAP is pretty egregious since it has a system called LRD which helps with the fan balance if a blade breaks off. Which also create a massive oil leak which ends up in the bleed airbsystem. With the LEAP beein the only engine option of the 737max/320neo, that's going to be a lot of aircraft susceptible to these incidents.

Reply

[-]

Swagger897@reddit

That's only if the engine suffers catastrophic damage, which isn't a daily occurring issue even in the world-wide scale of things. What is a daily issue, are the carbon seals wearing out allowing oil seepage. This isn't a design flaw however, it's just a wear & tear item. One engine with a niche design flaw vs every engine using the same seals...

Reply

[-]

TheAlmightySnark@reddit

yeah also it's not a design flaw and has been used in engines before. The dude knows nothing about the technical side of aircraft unfortunately.

Reply

[-]

Swagger897@reddit

That’s what happens when million+ youtube channels put out flashy videos. They do a good job at making it seem a lot worse than what it is.

Reply

[-]

TheAlmightySnark@reddit

Yep, he is one of the worst imho.

Reply

[-]

Darkomax@reddit

You should check this out if you believe it's benign. https://youtu.be/swlVkYVSlIE

Reply

[-]

mattrussell2319@reddit

Mentour Pilot has [talked a lot](https://youtu.be/ULgLKfE6CvU?si=O_-9WV5eB9xG8S0k) about this, for anyone who wants a deep dive into the topic. He’s been quite vocal about advocating for change.

Reply

[-]

Darkomax@reddit

This video is a followup of this one which explains the LRD function too.

Reply

[-]

LawManActual@reddit

The LEAP isn’t the only engine option for the 32N series. That’s why so many NEOs are grounded currently, P&W GTFs.

Reply

[-]

Darkomax@reddit

Ah that's true. but the 320neo being the best selling aircraft, that's still many LEAP engines flying around.

Reply

[-]

NeatPomegranate5273@reddit

It's not just the NEOs. A lot of CEOs have this issue too.

Reply

[-]

LawManActual@reddit

I think you think I’m referring to the topic of fume events, I am not. I’m referring to metallurgy issues in P&W GTF engines. And I’m referring to the line that LEAP is the only engine option for the 32N, which is it not. I’m well aware of fume risks in the 320 family, I operate them.

Reply

[-]

NeatPomegranate5273@reddit

My bad. Should've read closer. Assumed you were talking about the fume incidents since the comment you replied to was.

Reply

[-]

LawManActual@reddit

No worries

Reply

[-]

Luz5020@reddit

>using bleed air for pressurization What other options do manufacturers have?

Reply

[-]

Swagger897@reddit

You should read up on the 787.

Reply

[-]

Tony_Three_Pies@reddit

Of course, along with any number of other things that create toxic fumes. The LEAP introduces another failure mode, and a particularly insidious one given that the last thing you want when dealing with an engine failure on takeoff is the cockpit flooding with smoke. The NTSB is right to call it out. Time will tell if the response from the other stake holders is adequate.

Reply

[-]

747ER@reddit

Exactly; in fact the most common type for fume events is actually the Airbus A320.

Reply

[-]

MibixFox@reddit

Is there not some sort of emergency respirators they could provide till landing in an event like this?

Reply

[-]

responded@reddit

Yeah, why not have it be procedure to deploy the oxygen masks when a fume event occurs? Seems like a good procedural fix until a proper engineering fix can be implemented.

Reply

[-]

Jaggedmallard26@reddit

Oxygen masks aren't self contained breathing apparatus, they inject more oxygen into the mix of outside air that they pull in. Plus they only provide enough oxygen for an aircraft to drop from cruise altitude to one where pressurisation isn't required to stay conscious. In a fume event the fumes are still pulled in through the mask and the masks can't provide enough oxygen to actually get you to an airport. If you change it to so that every seat now has a fairly heavy duty self contained breathing apparatus that can get you safely onto the ground you have the problem that filling an aircraft with enough chemical oxygen generators to keep everyone safe from a fume event would be very heavy and have the added problem that the hull is now lined with extremely flammable oxidisers or just outright oxygen tanks. There are classes of event you cannot feasibly mitigate once they occur on a passenger aircraft (see also cockpit electrical fires) and the only solution is to do as much as you can to stop them occurring in the first place.

Reply

[-]

intern_steve@reddit

I reread the comment. My advice now is to kill the engine bleeds. Turn off bleed air, dump the cabin, and drop to 10,000. Oceanic routes already have to plan for the depressurization contingency, as do routes over or around high terrain. This is a manageable situation. The bigger issue is defining a fume event in a way that crews are capable of diagnosing objectively in flight. Better air quality monitoring is something we could probably afford. People are dying over this.

Reply

[-]

intern_steve@reddit

Both airlines I've worked for have had the masks set to 100% all the time. If necessary, we can also bump the supply pressure ("emergency" setting) which helps purge smoke from the mask and helps your lungs take up more O2 at altitudes above ~40k feet where the ambient pressure is lower than the partial pressure of O2 at sea level.

Reply

[-]

chaosattractor@reddit

They are talking about the cabin, no?

Reply

[-]

CelendilAU@reddit

If there’s more to this than just one or two fume exposure events is there a possibility that the use of engine bleed air is completely phased out as a result stuff like this up?

Reply

[-]

FlyingSceptile@reddit

It might be. 787 does not use engine bleed air, so it’s possible. I doubt it’s possible to retrofit older planes thought

Reply

[-]

michi098@reddit

On a 757 in the aft galley you can smell burning oil on nearly every engine start. I’m surprised crew don’t have more issues after many years of flying.

Reply

[-]

canyoutriforce@reddit

A320 FO here, that happens every couple of months with different severity I even put on my oxygen mask in flight once because it was so bad

Reply

[-]

theaviationhistorian@reddit

OneWorld and Spirit flight crews. Is this a maintenance issue, or why is this sudden news considering the 767, A319, & A330 have been flying for decades?

Reply

[-]

Dostoevskyslut@reddit

I happened to be curious about bleed air about a year ago. This has actually been a story for quite some time but is consistently quashed by lobbyists and media contacts.

Reply

[-]

Jaggedmallard26@reddit

Better reporting and the A320s engine is particularly prone to fume events so its had more attention to it which begets more people to report their experience.

Reply

[-]

NeatPomegranate5273@reddit

The article frames it as a Boeing issue, funnily enough.

Reply

[-]

Zorg_Employee@reddit

I think the whole pressurization system that most planes use could do with an update. Currently, many planes take the bleed air, run it through an air cycle machine, and then pump it into the cabin to breathe. An oil leak around the #1 seals will put oil in that system, vaporize it, and now you have to breathe in the hydrocarbons. I think a better way would be that the bleed air drives a compressor that pulls fresh air from somewhere forward of engines and hydrolic systems. I think someplace may use that, but im not certain.

Reply

[-]

h3ffr0n@reddit

787s for example don't use engine bleed air for air conditioning.

Reply

[-]

Insaneclown271@reddit

It’s the only airliner that uses this system.

Reply

[-]

MelsEpicWheelTime@reddit

The only *electric* system. 707 had a dedicated clean air turbo compressor.

Reply

[-]

Darkomax@reddit

It's the only one I think, at least for airliners.

Reply

[-]

railker@reddit

Would probably be an improvement, but as someone said, the retrofitting nightmare would ground aviation for decades. And obvs the ACMs still have a turbo and an oil sump, wonder if those ever leak through like car/truck turbos into the air system or if it's always the engine?

Reply

[-]

Zorg_Employee@reddit

Not all acms use oil. Many units use air bearings. Like on CRJ 700/900s. Its probably for the just the reason we're talking about. Haha

Reply

[-]

YamComprehensive7186@reddit

The 200 had the problem, we had a procedure for FFOD to not turn packs on engine bleeds for two minutes after start if I remember right because of fume events. Had to let the oil that leaked in over night burn out.

Reply

[-]

Zorg_Employee@reddit

They did! Its been a while since I worked on those. I remember we were always changing the coalescer socks (filters) to help with that odor.

Reply

[-]

Swagger897@reddit

Yeah I’ve never seen anything but air bearings on acms. Maybe for challengers and gulfstreams, but that’s not a thing on narrow and wide bodies.

Reply

[-]

railker@reddit

Ohhh yup, probably smart. 😅

Reply

[-]

hb_fash@reddit

Funny how Boeing got it right back in 1958 on the 707. The bleed air turned turbocompressors in the engine pylons which provided the pressurised air for the cabin. Complete isolation from the engine air so no risk of turbine oil entering the cabin. Only now on the 787 do they have an isolated air supply system again.

Reply

[-]

Stoney3K@reddit

Packs running on direct bleed air was probably done to save weight compared to a turbo (or electric) pack.

Reply

[-]

SoylentRox@reddit

At a minimum you could add *detectors* for this hazardous gas. And if you must use bleed air, design it where you can supply all the air to the aircraft from *either* engine's high pressure air line. Its less likely that both engines are leaking at any given point.

Reply

[-]

railker@reddit

Isolation you can typically already achieve, I believe. The Dash 8 has an isolation valve switch that shuts a valve between the left and right sides, as does the 737, that would allow one source of bleed air to power the system(s). Valve closes on the engine to shut it off, isolation valve opens, both sides are now connected. But by the time you can action that, you've already potentially got contamination through at least part of the system, I'd imagine.

Reply

[-]

SoylentRox@reddit

Sure, but if you have a sensitive enough detector you can shut it off. Poisons in the dose - this is why the passengers probably didn't get "chemical brain injuries" but maybe felt a little woozy after their flight with contaminated air. Orders of magnitude less total exposure.

Reply

[-]

SuspiciousYard2484@reddit

77 million Americans. Never forget

Reply

[-]

brandon7219@reddit

huh?

Reply

[-]

SuspiciousYard2484@reddit

Voted for him

Reply

[-]

brandon7219@reddit

Ahhh, what do fumes in the cockpit for both Boeing and Airbus aircraft have to due with the president?

Reply

[-]

SuspiciousYard2484@reddit

Nothing. I posted in the wrong thread. Omg.

Reply

[-]

brandon7219@reddit

lol /r/lostredditors

Reply

[-]

SuspiciousYard2484@reddit

Haha! 🫠

Reply

[-]

Outrageous_Limit4195@reddit

Load of jumbo crap.

Reply

[-]

CreditUnionGuy1@reddit

“Your safety is our primary responsibility”

Reply

[-]

Planeandaquariumgeek@reddit

Alright now I’m thinking the AA965 toxic fumes theory is actually true

Reply

[-]

Never_Forget_94@reddit

Toxic fumes theory?

Reply

[-]

mmm1441@reddit

What are the federal safety standards they are meeting? If there is no standard for engine oils in the air, their defense that they are meeting it means nothing.

Reply

[-]

brandon7219@reddit

Terrible. Guess I got lucky. Doing a MX run on a jet that had just come out of fuel cell MX. Ran up the #2 just fine, starting up the #4, smoke started to billow into the cockpit, i just figured it was because it had been down for so long for fuels MX. Started up the #1 and that shit got even worse. I couldn't even see my instruments. Kicked everyone off the jet and started shutdown procedures. Roughly 5 minutes of being up there before I got off. Called up Electrics to see if it was a bleed air issue or something and ran up again about 45 minutes later. Same fucking thing happened, kicked everyone off and shutdown. Thankfully, my leadership told me to go to the ER before I even brought it up. All I had was heightened levels of carbon monoxide and was discharged about 2 hours later when my levels normalized. Still got that shit on my medical records though.

Reply

[-]

billyvray@reddit

A buddy of mine spent almost 9 months on leave and just came back. Now he’s got ptsd cause any flight could set him back or damn near kill him.

Reply

[-]

anactualspacecadet@reddit

This reads like tabloid garbage, you can’t just say “toxic fumes” never elaborate on what exactly you’re talking about and expect anyone to take you seriously.

Reply

[-]

undockeddock@reddit

The Post is tabloid garbage. But the primary, in depth reporting was done by the WSJ in this piece: https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/he-was-poisoned-toxic-fumes-on-planes-blamed-for-deaths-of-pilots-and-crew/ar-AA1SN13A

Reply

[-]

NeatPomegranate5273@reddit

They frame this as a Boeing issue. This is just irresponsible reporting.

Reply

[-]

undockeddock@reddit

WSJ in the first report in their series actually framed it as being worse in Airbuses. They have been even handed. I have a feeling that their most recent article mentions boeing more, as the crew members that would agree to talk to them for this round of reporting just happened to be on routes with Boeing equipment. First article: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/toxic-fumes-are-leaking-into-airplanes-sickening-crews-and-passengers/ar-AA1MuNGM

Reply

[-]

heyjaney1@reddit

There was a big article in Wall Street Journal on this just yesterday. It’s not tabloid garbage. It was fumes from burning engine oil and there’s been many incidents of this .

Reply

[-]

heyjaney1@reddit

I want to know what’s happened to the health of many passengers on these flights. All the articles talk about severe health effects to crew after a single fume event.

Reply

[-]

NeatPomegranate5273@reddit

I will say that it is interesting how this article frames this as a mainly Boeing issue, when it has affected the entire industry, regardless of manufacturer, for years. This misreporting does a disservice to the image of the industry as a whole.

Reply

[-]

whepsayrgn@reddit

This seems to be the primary reporting: https://www.latimes.com/projects/toxic-chemicals-planes-covid-19-travel-woes/ Other contributing sources: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/121/12107.htm https://researchportal.murdoch.edu.au/esploro/outputs/doctoral/Direct-and-Indirect-Cognitive-and-Psychological/991005540363707891 https://web.archive.org/web/20100827071537/http://www.esam.aero/main/docs/ecam08/No%207%20Bagshaw%20paper.pdf https://archive.ph/2025.11.01-200955/https://www.wsj.com/business/airlines/air-travel-toxic-fumes-64839d6e

Reply

[-]

undockeddock@reddit

Here is the (non paywalled WSJ) article that OPs post links to https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/he-was-poisoned-toxic-fumes-on-planes-blamed-for-deaths-of-pilots-and-crew/ar-AA1SN13A

Reply

[-]

DonkeyImpossible316@reddit

You ever been in the delta lounge in term 3? The outdoor bar area is more areas fumes than o2. I feel bad for the workers.

Reply

[-]

bmw_19812003@reddit

The Industry needs to switch to separate pressurization systems, the 787 and the old 707 both had/have it. This will 100% eliminate these issues. Retrofitting would be a nightmare and probably not practical but new designs going forward it should be standard.

Reply

[-]

texas1982@reddit

We had plenty of fume issues in the 707.

Reply

[-]

downtocowtown@reddit

My dad retired from 35 years at a legacy and a few months later was diagnosed with myeloma, we have no family history of cancer.

Reply

[-]

Own-Inflation8771@reddit

I've often detected a whiff of jet fuel inside the cabin upon startup. Boeing and Airbus. Can't be healthy at all. If that makes it through the bleed air system/air packs, what else can as well ?

Reply

[-]

Insaneclown271@reddit

Jet fuel smell is fine. If you smell “dirty socks” that’s when you need to be worried.

Reply

[-]

kaleid5@reddit

What does that smell mean? The first time I got Covid I smelled dirty socks for like two weeks

Reply

[-]

Winbot4t2@reddit

Heated oil being aerosolized into the cabin air

Reply

[-]

oneforthehaters@reddit

For passengers though, how do you differentiate between that and the random unhinged passenger taking their shoes off mid-flight? Of course if you’re in the cockpit and smell that and the other guy hasn’t taken off the showers you’ll know, but in the back with 100 gross people?

Reply

[-]

RSampson993@reddit

Del Griffith has sat next to you too?

Reply

[-]

jetpilot87@reddit

Yes we should be concerned and manufacturers need to do more about this asap. Glad this is starting to get more attention. It absolutely happens and has hurt a lot of people.

Reply

[-]

Poison_Pancakes@reddit

Over the past few years I’ve frequently smelled exhaust fumes on airplanes when they’re starting the engines.

Reply

[-]

Significant_Onion_25@reddit

Isn't there a filter or a sock on the pax system that can be replaced?

Reply

[-]

Av8Xx@reddit

I have known a lot of mechanics who died of ALS. I believe there is an environmental factor specific to the job. The article I read says he stayed to run engines for maintenance, so I’m curious to know if he put on his oxygen mask for the engine runs only for my own curiosity not to place blame. The sad thing is when we are doing engine runs to verify (before or after fix) fumes in cabin we really cannot wear a mask because we need to smell the fumes/lack of fumes.

Reply

[-]

Concerened17@reddit

Am a FA and this 100% happens, I know many FA’s who’ve had fume events, and if you don’t get to the hospital and tested within I think 1-2 hours it’s out of your system and you can’t prove it. If you can’t prove it the airlines act like nothing is happening, you don’t get paid for calling out, they try to make your life miserable by saying you’re lying and they don’t change anything because they don’t want to be responsible for the millions it will cost to fix the problem. There are pilots and FA’s at my airline who’ve been out for years because of this, it’s very sad and scary. Yes I still love my job even though this is a possibility. I also feel like it hits everyone differently. I wish they did more research to find out how it can take one pilot out of work but the other sitting a foot away just gets a headache that goes away.

Reply

[-]

mattrussell2319@reddit

Good question. Different responses to these events doesn’t surprise me. I mentioned a BAe146 hydraulic fluid leak event in another comment here, and I started coughing long before anyone else in the cabin. Maybe there are genetic differences in the threshold for when my smell receptors trigger a coughing response (I’m speculating about the mechanism here!). The worrying thing is that someone who responds less quickly to this may still be being harmed by it.

Reply

[-]

sloppyrock@reddit

It was a big problem on our BAe146s back in the day. They stunk when they had problems.

Reply

[-]

mattrussell2319@reddit

The one I took had a hydraulic fluid leak whose vapour entered the cabin and I started coughing almost immediately. Soon everyone else was and we deplaned pretty quickly. Not an unusual event apparently!

Reply

[-]

Express-Way9295@reddit

I spoke with a Concorde Pilot who said it was a problem on that plane, too.

Reply

[-]

sloppyrock@reddit

One of my former instructors that taught the 146 avionics died from a weird lung disease and a good number of tech and cabin crew had serious health issues. They really were a heap of shit.

Reply

[-]

PMmeIamlonley@reddit

Our lives are such a joke to this industry.

Reply

[-]

atropear@reddit

I wonder how many of the injured pilots were in the reserve. I've know pilots and tankers in the military who seem to get various brain and nerve diseases. Especially combat vets.

Reply

[-]

AccomplishedLog1426@reddit

what the fuck?

Reply